DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Youn et al (US 20190181188 A1), Youn hereinafter.
Regarding claim 1, Youn discloses a display apparatus comprising: a substrate (102, ¶ [62], fig. 3) including a plurality of pixels (¶ [17]), each pixel having a plurality of sub-pixels (R-SP, G-SP, and B-SP, ¶ [28], fig. 2) and non-light emission areas (NEA, ¶ [28], fig. 3) between the sub-pixels (R-SP, G-SP, and B-SP); a pattern portion (108, ¶ [50], fig. 3) disposed on the substrate (102); and a reflective portion (111, ¶ [82], fig. 4) disposed on the pattern portion (108), wherein the pattern portion (108) includes: a first inclined pattern portion (108F, hereinafter as denoted on the figure below) inclining at a first angle with respect to an upper surface of the substrate (102); and a second inclined pattern portion (108S, hereinafter as denoted on the figure below) inclining at a second angle with respect to the upper surface of the substrate (102), and wherein the reflective portion (111) includes: a first inclined reflective portion (111F, hereinafter as denoted on the figure below) disposed on the first inclined pattern portion (108F); and a second inclined reflective portion (111S, hereinafter as denoted on the figure below) disposed on the second inclined pattern portion (108S).
Regarding claim 2, Youn discloses that the first angle is equal to or different from the second angle (see figs. 3 & 4).
Regarding claim 4, Youn discloses that a width of the pattern portion (108) decreases in a direction from the reflective portion (111) toward the substrate (102) (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Youn discloses that each sub-pixel includes a light emission area (EA, ¶ [28], fig. 3) disposed adjacent to the non-light emission area (NEA), wherein the non-light emission area (NEA) includes a circuit area (TrA, ¶ [40], fig. 3) disposed on one side of the light emission area (EA) (see fig. 3), and wherein the pattern portion (108) surrounds a remainder of the light emission area (EA) except for the one side of the light emission area (EA) on which the circuit area (TrA) is disposed (See figs. 2 &3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if at least one the limitations indicated below were included in the base claim.
Regarding claim 3, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 3, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to a second flat pattern portion connected to the second inclined pattern portion, and wherein the reflective portion further includes: a first flat reflective portion connected to the first inclined reflective portion and disposed on the first flat pattern portion; and a second flat reflective portion connected to the second inclined reflective portion and disposed on the second flat pattern portion.
Regarding claims 12-13, the claims are allowable for the reasons given in claim 3 because of their dependency status from claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 6, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to the first inclined pattern portion is disposed adjacent to the pixel electrode, and wherein the second inclined pattern portion is spaced apart from the pixel electrode.
Regarding claims 7-11, the claims are allowable for the reasons given in claim 6 because of their dependency status from claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 14, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to the first angle and the second angle are different, and wherein the first inclined pattern portion is directly connected to the second inclined pattern portion.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is allowable for the reasons given in claim 14 because of their dependency status from claim 14.
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 16, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 16, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to a second light emitted from the corresponding sub-pixel is emitted toward the substrate and reflected from a lower surface of the substrate back to the second inclined reflective portion and then reflected to the outside of the substrate, in combination with the remaining limitations. This limitation has not been found, taught, suggested or render obvious by the prior art of the record with a reasonable expectation of success, which it makes this claim allowable over the prior art, since Youn does not teach that the lower surface of the substrate reflects light back to the second inclined reflective portion.
Regarding claims 16-20, the claims are allowable for the reasons given in claim 15 because of their dependency status from claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11424427 B2 discloses a sub-pixel structure with inclined reflective portions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE M. DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9822. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James R Greece can be reached at (571) 272-3711. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSE M DIAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/JAMES R GREECE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights